Jack Smith is not done with Donald Trump

This new indictment details the criminal charges against Donald Trump, taking into account the Supreme Court’s recent clarifications on presidential immunity.

After Jack Smith submitted it to a new grand jury, he chose to reintroduce the charges against Trump.

The revised indictment against Trump has been adjusted to comply with recent Supreme Court rulings on activities covered by presidential immunity, resulting in significant changes to both the evidence and the charges.

This revision of the charges demonstrates the prosecutor’s efforts to implement and comply with Supreme Court rulings and instructions concerning the presidential immunity that Trump could invoke for actions taken during his term in office.

According to the Department of Justice, the revised 36-page indictment (formerly 45 pages), which removes charges that could qualify Trump for presidential immunity, was presented to an entirely new Grand Jury that had not previously considered any evidence in the case.

The Supreme Court ruled that sitting presidents, including and especially Trump we understand, enjoy immunity for acts performed during a presidential term.

This decision led Jack Smith to eliminate all charges relating to acts that were considered to fall within Trump’s official duties. The new indictment no longer includes allegations concerning Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, a crucial aspect of the original indictment.

Charges relating to Trump’s inaction during the assault on the Capitol in January have been dropped, as these actions could fall under presidential immunity. The dropped charges also include Trump’s alleged refusal to send a clear message to stop the rioters on January 6, 2021, ignoring calls from his advisors and persisting in his opposition to certifying electoral votes.

In the revised indictment, Jack Smith clarifies that Trump had “no official responsibility” for a state’s certification of election results and was acting “not as President, but as a candidate”. This distinction seeks to rule out any legal protections Trump might have enjoyed due to his presidential status.